Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Pull Push
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on a new hypothesis regarding gravity, proposing that it may not be a pulling force but rather a result of sub-atomic pressure exerted by particles, particularly neutrinos from the sun. The user suggests that when an object is thrown, it is not gravity pulling it down, but rather the pressure from surrounding sub-atomic particles that pushes it back to Earth. This theory challenges the conventional understanding of gravity and invites further exploration and experimentation to validate or refute its claims.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly gravity.
  • Familiarity with sub-atomic particles and their interactions.
  • Knowledge of neutrinos and their role in physics.
  • Basic grasp of gravitational theories, including Newtonian and Einsteinian frameworks.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of neutrinos in physics and their interactions with matter.
  • Explore alternative theories of gravity, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).
  • Investigate experimental methods to test the push theory of gravity.
  • Study the implications of sub-atomic pressure in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, researchers in theoretical physics, and anyone interested in exploring alternative models of gravity beyond traditional theories.

  • #91
entropy why is it that u still haven't answered urtalkinstupid's first question? u know... it's the one about mercury's orbit? do you even know what it looks like or why it is truly unique? if so please give me a more indepth explanation... and yes i saw ur measly excuse for an answer and i could've gotten that out of an encyclopedia.

oh here u go stupid(urtalkin): http://www.hermograph.com/science/mercuryd.htm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
you don't have to know more than ME, you have to know more than AUTHORITIES on the SUBJECT.

putting that beside the point, I'm going to give you a tip. read and UNDERSTAND the current accepted theories from people with degrees and years more education than you before you embark on your trek to debunk them and rewrite the universe to suit your views.

you don't even understand space curvature and it's VERY basic, boilerplate stuff.

i think they even teach it to third graders are the natural science museum
 
  • #93
gravity

Ok, let's go back to the subject of gravity not being a pull. Well, as entropy and terrabyte put it "space-time curvature causing an inclination." Gravity is the result of emission and absorption. This emission and absorption relies on density. I'm sure this concept is available to pre-schoolers through picture books. Everything gives off energy and absorbs energy. How does pull gravity or space-time curvature express this concept?

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like. When Newton said that gravity was a force that resulted in two masses acting on each other depending on their distances, Einstein knew thought that wasn't the only thing happened, and he chose to ellaborate on that idea proposed by Newton. Theories are revised all the time. I think that the whole concept of gravity and light should be revised as well. Gravity can not possibly be an attractive force. It seems more logical with reality to be a repulsive force, and anyone who knows rational from irrational should know that. Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?
 
  • #94
terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe
 
  • #95
urtalkinstupid said:
.

Well, can you give me a thorough explanation on why black holes have a further reach of space-time curvature than the neutron star it was "born" from? I mean so thorough that my HEAD EXPLODES.
They don't. And no one familiar with the subject says that they do.
 
  • #96
beatrix kiddo said:
terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe
Or perhaps a pair of gibbering fools, no?
 
  • #97
urtalkinstupid said:
Ok, let's go back to the subject of gravity not being a pull. Well, as entropy and terrabyte put it "space-time curvature causing an inclination." Gravity is the result of emission and absorption. This emission and absorption relies on density. I'm sure this concept is available to pre-schoolers through picture books. Everything gives off energy and absorbs energy. How does pull gravity or space-time curvature express this concept?

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like. When Newton said that gravity was a force that resulted in two masses acting on each other depending on their distances, Einstein knew thought that wasn't the only thing happened, and he chose to ellaborate on that idea proposed by Newton. Theories are revised all the time. I think that the whole concept of gravity and light should be revised as well. Gravity can not possibly be an attractive force. It seems more logical with reality to be a repulsive force, and anyone who knows rational from irrational should know that. Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

Alright, first of all, observations were being made that suggested the Earth wasn't flat. I believe that these were made very early on. Observations such as why ships disappeared over the horizon, etc.

Now, explain to me why gravity, when seen as a space-time curve, is a push or a pull? Looks to me like there's NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever.
 
  • #98
beatrix kiddo said:
terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe

As in being wrong, and clinging to wrong beliefs (despite evidence to the contrary) until your death bed?

(note: Columbus did not set out to prove the world round, he set out to prove that it was smaller than it is(and was generally thought to be in his time). He hit an unknown(to him) continent, thought he had reached India, and believed that he had reached India to his dying day.)
 
  • #99
entropy why is it that u still haven't answered urtalkinstupid's first question? u know... it's the one about mercury's orbit? do you even know what it looks like or why it is truly unique? if so please give me a more indepth explanation... and yes i saw ur measly excuse for an answer and i could've gotten that out of an encyclopedia.

I admitted that I didn't not know about the irregularity of Mercury's orbit. I've tried to search for some references to it without success. But thank you for that link I'm reading it right now and my answer is the same.

The author claims that the problem is that Mercury has an elliptical orbit without a a gravitational source at one of it's foci. The thing is that you don't need to have an actual object there, simply a gravitation field, like from a distant object like another planet.

Another problem the author says:

But Mercury has a very eccentric orbit and it is millions of miles closer at perihelion than it is at aphelion, its farthest distance from the Sun. So it really has to move FAST there to stay in orbit. When Mercury is that close, the sun's gravity is even stronger. In Einstein's words, the curvature of space-time is greater here so Mercury "feels" like there is an extra mass here. That extra mass feels like it is trying to pull the planet inward. By giving Mercury this pull every three months, the orbit is kicked a bit, making it rotate very slowly in space. Remember our marble in the well? Suppose we give it a slight pull inwards every time it gets a little deeper in the well but not enough to pull it all the way in. The marble comes back out but not quite on the path it would have taken if we hadn't interfered. That's what the sun's gravity is doing. Newton's gravity is much simpler than Einstein's gravity but Einstein's cleared up the mystery of the orbit turning the wrong amount!

This is where he makes a mistake. As Mercury comes closer to the sun (i.e. gravity is stronger on it) it is falling into the sun a little so to speak but something else occurs with this. It speeds up as it falls therefore being "sling shotted" around the sun. The momentum it gained as it sped up allows it to continue on its predicted orbital path. This has been observed with just about all celestial bodies. Most commonly comets because they have very eccentric orbits.

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like.

Acutally most cultures through out time didn't believe the world was flat at all. Very few ancient peoples believed in a flat Earth.

Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

What missing mass? Not all physicists believe that there needs to be dark matter in order to make up for missing mass. Many thought there needed to be missing mass because stars at the ends of galaxies moved just as fast as ones in the center. But many now theorize that stars at the ends of galaxies only appear to be moving faster at the moment because of certain types of waves moving though the galaxies.

The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force?

You mean momentum from the Big Bang? And it has been brought into question whether the universe is actually explanding (see below).

Galaxies moving away from each other?

Actually that too has been brought into question because gravity can red-shift light and make objects appear as if they are moving away at high speeds. Along with other sources of red-shift it is very possible that red-shift my not be a good tool for measuring objects' speeds.
 
Last edited:
  • #100
Alkatran said:
Now, explain to me why gravity, when seen as a space-time curve, is a push or a pull?

Alkatran, I threw in space-time curvature as an alternative to the push or pull theories. I was not saying that space-time curvature had forces involved with it.

Janus, yes, I understand what you are saying. New question: How do things fall into black holes faster than they fall into massive stars given the fact that black holes are just a denser version of the neutron star they previously were? I don't know how to expalain exactly to get the answer I am seeking.

Entropy, so, I'm assuming that you are going against Einstein and his cosmological constant? By missing, I didn't necessarily undetectable. I was only reiterating from sources that I have encountered. I know there is no such thing as missing mass. The mass that is missing is theorized to be in the form of neutrinos and other sub-atomic particles. The universe isn't even expanding. Once again, I was only reiterating sources that go by theories proposed by Einstein. The Big Bang never happened. The red-shift that is associated with "gravity" having an affect on light. Is this caused by gravitational pull or rotating galaxies giving off gravitational fields? If I'm not mistaken, does something with space-time curvature give off gravitational fields when it is rotating?

jcsd, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether that opinion be right or wrong. :biggrin:

Now, as for a better explanation for Mercury's odd orbit:
Stephen Mooney said:
It's known that Isaac Newton's theory of gravity is limited in its capacity to represent gravity. It required Relativity theory to express the situation with the advance in the perihelion of Mercury. However, the relativity is with the emission capacity of Mercury and the density of the emission of the Sun as Mercury passes the Sun at perihelion. At this point Mercury attains a state of decreased absorption of emission, which results in a slight decrease its attraction to the Sun. This is the reason for the advance in its perihelion.

I already know you people are going to disregard what this guy says.

P.S. Alkatran, there are differences between push, pull, and space-time curvature. Hope you guys can at least agree with me on this one. :frown:
 
  • #101
Janus, yes, I understand what you are saying. New question: How do things fall into black holes faster than they fall into massive stars given the fact that black holes are just a denser version of the neutron star they previously were? I don't know how to expalain exactly to get the answer I am seeking.

they DON'T as we've been saying for the last 4 pages or so.

Assume a solid mass the size of the sun exists somewhere. you're floating 1 mile off its surface. the "pull" you feel from that object is a given amount, generally felt as your "weight".

Compress that "sun" mass down to the size of a tennis ball. now you're 50,000 miles off its surface (whatever the freaking radius of the sun may be) and you STILL feel the same pull, because the mass has NOT changed only the density.

however you CAN travel farther TOWARDS that mass, creating a stronger pull than the 1 mile distance you could travel in the "before" situation.

it's like you have a huge funnel and a big ball. The ball takes up a lot of space that can't be used by other objects riding on the funnel <orbits>. you compress that ball and it fits farther down inside the funnel, increasing the available usable space of the funnel, yet it does not change the funnel itself, or the funnel's effect on other objects riding on it.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
So, why can't the normal star bendlight, but a black hole can bend light?
 
  • #103
all mass bends light

only black holes have sufficient mass to bend it to where we can detect it.
 
  • #104
to clarify, the light being "bent" is far closer to the black hole's total mass than the non compressed same mass as a star
 
  • #105
That doen't seem to sway me in believing that mass affects space-time. Massive stars bend light at an angle, when black holes are said to bend light backwards. There is no mass difference, just mass is more concentrated. You are saying that this concentration of mass allows light to get closer? With the ability of light being able to get closer, it is bent backwards?
 
  • #106
exactly. proximity is decidedly the most CRITICAL point of the mass / gravity relationship.

just like two magnets sitting on a table 1 ft apart exert a pull on each other a measured amount, put them 1/2 that distance apart and the force exerted upon each other increases at a geometric scale. NOTHING in the magnets is changing to make the force different, only the distance between the elements in the experiment.
 
  • #107
Magnets and Gravity are two different concepts. So, density does matter. If objects are denser they have more affect on objects,they allow objects to get closer with their pull or inclination of space-time. As you described, the regular star didn't have enough mass concentrated to allow light to be bent backwards, but as it compresses into a black hole it does, because the density of the black hole allows light to come close, fall in, and never escape or something like that.
 
  • #108
The red-shift that is associated with "gravity" having an affect on light. Is this caused by gravitational pull or rotating galaxies giving off gravitational fields? If I'm not mistaken, does something with space-time curvature give off gravitational fields when it is rotating?

The gravitational red-shift is caused by anything with gravity, rotating or not. If something is rotating it will still have gravity.

Magnets and Gravity are two different concepts.

Yes, but they both follow the inverse square rule and that's the point.
 
  • #109
So, is this red-shift of light caused, because upon encountering a gravitational field the light has to slow down, but maintain its constant velocity so it shifts its frequency?
 
  • #110
urtalkinstupid said:
That doen't seem to sway me in believing that mass affects space-time. Massive stars bend light at an angle, when black holes are said to bend light backwards. There is no mass difference, just mass is more concentrated. You are saying that this concentration of mass allows light to get closer? With the ability of light being able to get closer, it is bent backwards?
A black hole and a star of the same mass have the same vacuum solutions (all else being equal) to Einstein's field equations, it's only when you start to examine the metric inside the star that you start to see a diffrence. The denisty of the object matters inside of the object though not necessarily outside the object.
 
  • #111
So, is this red-shift of light caused, because upon encountering a gravitational field the light has to slow down, but maintain its constant velocity so it shifts its frequency?

Yes. It changes its frequency so its velocity stays the same.
 
  • #112
Ok, I have not studied gravity's affect on light, so that just came from logic. So, are you able to ellaborate on what I said to terrabyte?
 
  • #113
forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't red-shift the result of the doppler effect? (red=lower frequency, meaning a cosmic body is moving away from the viewer, thus increasing the wavelength of light emitted in the opposite direction of motion, likewise blue-shift means an object is moving towards the observer and is producing a perceived higher frequency of light) ??
:rolleyes:
 
  • #114
Correct! Although, I'm not a believer in the affects of gravity has on light, but I will revert my mind to pull gravity or inclination of space-time. You have your facts straight referring to Doppler Affect. Gravity slows down light, because it "supposedly" bends the light. So, in order to keep its constant velocity, light's frequency tends to be seen as red. Same with blue, except light is viewed as going faster and must change frequency to slow down its speed.
 
  • #115
So, density does matter. If objects are denser they have more affect on objects,they allow objects to get closer with their pull or inclination of space-time. As you described, the regular star didn't have enough mass concentrated to allow light to be bent backwards, but as it compresses into a black hole it does, because the density of the black hole allows light to come close, fall in, and never escape or something like that.

no, density is not part of the equation, distance is :D
 
  • #116
I know that distance is part of the equation. Equations do not mean anything, but to make more sense I think this one should be revised to take into account that density has an affect on what is going on.
 
  • #117
Janus is correct about Columbus. In the 15th century all educated people knew that the Earth was a sphere- and, as far as geography goes, that would include sea captains. In fact, 2000 years before Columbus Aristarchus had calculated the size of the earth.

Columbus was one of a minority who, while aware that the Earth was a sphere, believed it was much smaller than Aristarchus had calculated. Columbus' argument was similar to what we see here all the time. The known world at that time was much smaller than Aristarchus' size. Columbus argued that it "didn't make sense" for all land to be on one side of the earth. Apparently the possiblity of large undiscovered land masses didn't occur to him.
 
  • #118
Thanks for the history lesson. My teacher didn't explain it like that; I never did like my WHAP teacher. :smile:
 
  • #119
know that distance is part of the equation. Equations do not mean anything, but to make more sense I think this one should be revised to take into account that density has an affect on what is going on.

density is accounted for in the "distance"

as long as you are "exterior" to the object, no matter how "dense" it is, it does not change the gravitational "pull" on you.

you have to remember an object is not simply itself, but a comglomerate of all its particles. when we say "mass" of an object, we're talking about the combined mass of all its particles.

each particle "pulls" and it's the total average or net "pull" that we observe on a macro scale. Going back to the prior example, if you took that sun that you were 1 mile above and compressed it, the net pull on you would not change if the distances between you and the center of mass did not change. particles on the far side of that "sun" would come closer towards the center, increasing the "pull" on you, but particles that were on YOUR side would also move away from you towards the center, cancelling it all out.
 
  • #120
About the changing of size keeping gravity the same: Are you sure about that?

Consider 3 particles making up an object. Particle A is 1 meter away, B is 2, C is 3, the gravity from each (they are the same mass) is m/1 + m/4 + m/9 = 36m/36 + 9m/36 + 4m/36 = 49m/36

Now if they are condensed to the same position with the same center: gravity = m/4+m/4+m/4 = 3m/4
49/36m-3/4m = 0.61 m
(3m/4 == 49m/36) = false

Explain, please?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K